Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 27: Difference between revisions

*”’Redirect”’ to [[:Taylor Swift albums discography]], which preserves historicality and generally also contains information about announced upcoming albums. [[User:Respublik|Respublik]] ([[User talk:Respublik|talk]]) 17:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

*”’Redirect”’ to [[:Taylor Swift albums discography]], which preserves historicality and generally also contains information about announced upcoming albums. [[User:Respublik|Respublik]] ([[User talk:Respublik|talk]]) 17:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

:<div class=”xfd_relist” style=”margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;”><span style=”color: #FF6600;”>”'{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}”'</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Explicit|<span style=”color:#000000″>✗</span>]][[User talk:Explicit|<span style=”color:white;background:black;font-family:felix titling;font-size:80%”>plicit</span>]] 23:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)</small><!– from Template:XfD relist –></div>

:<div class=”xfd_relist” style=”margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;”><span style=”color: #FF6600;”>”'{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}”'</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Explicit|<span style=”color:#000000″>✗</span>]][[User talk:Explicit|<span style=”color:white;background:black;font-family:felix titling;font-size:80%”>plicit</span>]] 23:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)</small><!– from Template:XfD relist –></div>

Delete. The Life of a Showgirl is no longer upcoming, so this redirect is misleading. It’s worth mentioning that this redirect has history that was merged into Taylor Swift, but the merge was quickly reverted per WP:CRYSTAL. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk ⋅ edits) 23:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Respublik: I didn’t think of that, and I’m not opposed to it.

I have added every redirect that matches the regular expression Upcoming_.*_(album|film) to this discussion. Some of them target a section of the artist’s discography/filmography article, while others target the artist’s (usually) most recent, already released work.

I am willing to establish consensus to redirect all of these to the relevant section of the artist’s discography/filmography article. This target would inform the reader of any newly announced work or lack thereof.

I have one exception: keep Upcoming Beyoncé album → Cowboy Carter for now. This target specifically mentions that Cowboy Carter is the second part of a planned trilogy.

–CopperyMarrow15 (talk ⋅ edits) 00:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles and add a hatnote leading back to the original target. I believe this is more clear of a target than the citing sources page. –Samoht27 (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

doesn’t seem to be a particularly plausible term. the results were pretty much exclusive to games, and the rare coincidence consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is a fairly broad descriptor but currently redirects to a fairly niche article. It’s hard to predict what any given reader would be likely to expect to find from this search term, but I suspect the current target would be likely to WP:ASTONISH many users who were looking for an article like Provinces of Ireland or Counties of Ireland. No personal opinion regarding whether this redirect should be retargeted, made into a disambiguation page, deleted, or left as is (possibly with a hatnote added at the target). HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to either Local government in the Republic of Ireland or Counties of Ireland. Subdivisions of Ireland and similar redirects already targets to the former, while the latter better describes the actual regions of Ireland. SignTheSign (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Straight to the point – Reasons 1 and 5 of WP:RFD#DELETE:
Transpeptidation → delete
Transpeptidase (disambiguation) – three options:
→ 1: delete both target page and this redirect
→ 2: delete target instead, move its contents into this redirect
→ 3:^{[added. 12:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)]} make target into an article, make this redirect into an actual disamb page as named so.

Both link to a disamb page; you’d think the page with “(disambiguation)” literally in its name/title would be the disamb page, but no! It also doesn’t make sense to redirect “transpeptidation” to “transpeptidase” – that’s like redirecting polymerization to polymerase, and the latter is just a disamb page anyway (despite not having “(disambiguation)” in its name/title). I also don’t think that a disambiguation for transpeptidase needs to exist; it’s a class of enzymes, it’s not exactly a “may refer to” situation since nobody uses the word to mean specifically a particular protein, unless they specified that protein. Since I don’t have enough knowledge for either subject to make them into articles myself, I decided to choose deletion, hoping it becomes a red link somewhere for someone see and turn it into an article.

If I recall correctly, I only just discovered transpeptidation/-ase because I saw the former word mentioned in peptidyl transferase center, and I tried to wikilink that until I discovered… (Perhaps no wonder it wasn’t hyperlinked?) And that’s why we’re here now. CheckNineEight (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: @CheckNineEight: I’ve combined these into a single listing. I will update the link at Transpeptidase (disambiguation) so it points to this discussion. —MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:03, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You might have also missed this: Transpeptidase – which serves as the {{R with possibilities}} rather than Transpeptidase (disambiguation).Can you also fix the link at Transpeptidation, by the way? CheckNineEight (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both Transpeptidase (disambiguation). The reason we have redirects like Transpeptidase (disambiguation) is described at WP:INTDABLINK. Transpeptidation is usually often discussed in the context of transpeptidases; the same is not true vis-à-vis polymerization. Perhaps a one-line description of transpeptidation could be added to the dab page although that might not survive clean up. It may be an {{R with possibilities}} but I’m not sure a description beyond what’s in the enzyme articles is warranted. —MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:16, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, because transpeptidation is the process of joining amino acids or peptides (peptide bond formation), and it’s not exclusive to transpeptidases (e.g., peptidyl transferase center; i.e., the word is found on the following articles: Translation (biology), 23S ribosomal RNA). CheckNineEight (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to deleting transpeptidation. —MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 02:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m glad it’s decided only Transpeptidase (disambiguation) should be kept. Also, I forgot that I had a 3rd option for that, which is: swap it with its target and make Transpeptidase – the one without the parentheticals – into its own article (no deletions, but no more redirect – just an article and a disamb). Speaking of options, I realized that I could have worded my original post much better, and I also forgot to put “(disambiguation)” in “Transpeptidase – two options:”. (Can I edit my post?) CheckNineEight (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the ‘transpeptidase’ label is clear enough but you can edit it to add ‘(disambiguation)’. It’s always good to exercise caution around changing the wording in discussion posts but in this case it isn’t likely to mislead and you can always add an updated timestamp or make a note about the change. There’s some general guidance at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments. Transpeptidase is a good candidate for a set index article. —MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So … Lucid? Delete as hopelessly ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in article. मल्ल (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a thing. There are fields that are not gravitational fields just like there is candy that is not cotton candy, but non-cotton candy is not a thing. It redirects to antigravity but that makes no sense either. Unsourced at target. Delete Johnjbarton (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No information on subject on redirected article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the article, it seems unclear how this redirect is a likely or helpful redirect, given that “0280” and “COD” seem to be mentioned now there in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{keep}} This is the code of the legislative procedure, which was and is linked in the article. Nemo 08:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Nemo. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 15:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• When this redirect was created in 2018, the directive was a draft, and was mentioned as such. Now, it is confusing why a 2019 directive is referred to as 2016. Delete – without mention, these are just some numbers and letters with a burden of verification. No reason to use draft version codes. I unpiped it from PhotoDNA. Jay 💬 05:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a connection between Moodle and ErfurtWiki, but it is not mentioned at the page and I cannot find a great source to add it in. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 02:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The comment in the AFD is incorrect. Moodle was not built on top of ErfurtWiki. You can create wikis inside Moodle as an activity. It is only the wiki created as an activity through Moodle that is based on ErfurtWiki. It’s like redirecting ‘Meat’ to ‘Sausage’ because sausages contain meat, but they are not the same thing and redirecting in this way is misleading. Sausages are made of more than meat and meat contributes to more than just sausages. DrKay (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Restoring would be a waste of time. Even at the original AFD, no one was suggesting that this thing had any independent notability. Despite the close as a merge, no merge was ever done. A mention at the target would be pretty undue as well. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target nor at Tonsillitis. This appears to be a rare manifestation of syphilis and a rare cause of tonsillitis and therefore likely WP:UNDUE for inclusion at either target. Per the edit summary, this was created as part of a WP:DERM initiative to create articles or redirects for every single entry at List of skin conditions and every rare disease mentioned in a well regarded dermatology textbook. Lacking suitable content, this should be deleted. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 01:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It’s a real thing[1][2] and the existing redirect does a good job of getting any interested reader to the most relevant article. The fact that it is {{not mentioned}} is unimportant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s not a synonym of “syphilis” so the language cited at WP:RFD#DELETE #8 is irrelevant. Anyone searching this already knows it has something to do with syphilis and sending them to a 6,000 word article that doesn’t describe the condition isn’t helpful. It’s more considerate of readers’ time to identify that the topic is not covered. They might then go to a search engine where they will find several case reports in a matter of second, as we both did while looking into this. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 13:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I know this surprises some Wikipedia editors, as we’re generally quite literate, but the fact is that not everyone who sees that name (e.g., on a medical report) will actually know that it’s the ‘syphilis’ part of the name that matters instead of the ‘tonsiliitis’ part, especially when it’s obvious that it’s your throat that hurts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Readers with low literacy/health literacy are even less well served by this redirect. When someone searches for a specific complication of syphilis, we should not send them to a page that does not address it at all. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 14:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Dictation (exercise). The current redirect doesn’t seem like it would be what a user searching for “Dictation test” would want to see. (This is also a WP:RWP.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just a generic username (talk • contribs) 00:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree with retargeting. As someone who speaks Australian English, the first thing I think of when I hear “dictation test” is the immigration policy of Australia, since every child in this country learns about the dictation test of the White Australia Policy during third grade of primary school. Not everyone who uses Wikipedia uses American English or British English, and while you claim that it “doesn’t seem like it would be what a user… would want to see”, that is not what a typical Google search seems to corroborate, the top 50 results all relate to Australian immigration policy. Unless you can provide ample evidence that a “dictation test” is a commonly used synonym for a dictation exercise, I am in favour of keeping the redirect, or at the very least, converting it to a disambiguation page. —benlisquare_T•C•E 13:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• And in case my geolocation is skewing the Google search results, I’ve conducted a fair test: here is a Google search from my Australian IP address (4 out of 4 top results relate to Australian immigration policy), here is a Google search from a United States VPN exit node with cookies cleared (2 out of 4 top results relate to Australian immigration policy), and here is a Google search from a United Kingdom VPN exit node with cookies cleared (2 out of 4 top results relate to Australian immigration policy). While it’s not 4/4 like it was without the VPN, one certainly can’t make the argument that the usage is completely absent when searching from the US or Britain. —benlisquare_T•C•E 14:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Benlisquare: Thank you for the information. However, I have used four different search engines and only Google has a search result for the Australian immigration test, and Bing has a search suggestion for “dictation test australia”. [3](Google), [4](DuckDuckGo),[5](Bing), and [6](Startpage). To ensure fairness, screenshots were taken by zooming out to the minimum zoom allowed, and taking a screenshot.

  Thus, I conclude that our google searches aren’t enough to determine this since they contradict each other.

  So I searched Google Ngram ([7]), and the correlation between the two terms seem to be not insignificant, but not decisive either, looking purely at the recent usage. Any ideas on what else might help determine this, or whether there is a flaw in my reasoning?

  Also, please note that while Australian English’s use of “dictation test” to refer to what the redirect currently points to is significant, it’s probably more important to focus on how the majority of English speakers use it, and your comment appears to overemphasise the Australian usage of the term. (I checked Google Trends ([8]) and it looks like Australia accounts for 1/3 of the global usage.) But that aside, thank you for the useful information.

  Just a generic username (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No substantial history whatsoever. News we do have is that it will start on 3 January 2026 per this [9]. It could be created, but it is probably just by the narrowest margin WP:TOOSOON. Delete per WP:RETURNTORED to encourage article creation. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: It actually starts in December and it’s the right time for it to stop being a red link. OCDD (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OCDD The concern is not that is starting soon. The concern is people see a blue link, they might just assume the article exists when it is just a redirect. Red Links are to encourage article creation. Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Old, but it’s basically always been a redirect — upon creation in 2009 it was a separate article, but it was redirected within half an hour because it was a content fork — and the unneeded punctuation at the end makes it quite unlikely. Combine that with its improper capitalisation (“college” in place of “College”), an unusual word (“Computering”, maybe an error or maybe an odd choice of words by the school) and the shorter title of the target (few people will type the long form when the short form will do), and we have an implausible redirect: the only way you come here is if you make two errors when attempting to type a long name that apparently isn’t in use anymore. Any of those factors, alone, is all right, but combining all of them makes this extremely unlikely and very un-useful. Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]